|
Post by rmc1971 on Sept 10, 2007 5:11:09 GMT -5
I have read claims that at one point Fisch was a client of Wendel's. Is there any real documentation of this? Or is this just another urban legend? If that story has legs, that's just another in the long line of interesting connections in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 10, 2007 14:54:19 GMT -5
There has been questions on this board about that information in the past. Here is one of my older posts on the subject dated March 11, 2007: Wayne Jone's source for this is apparently Scaduto. Scaduto's source is Bleefeld. Of course Bleefeld was definitely in a position to know, claiming to have obtained this information from Wendel after he was picked up in NY. The problem is this: do we believe him? I have been searching for this connection in Hoffman, Parker, Green, and Fisher's papers for years and haven't found even a remote reference. It's hard for me to believe this didn't come out in the course of one trial or another but I haven't found it there either. Now I don't have every single page of transcripts but believe me when I say I am close. I just picked up the Appeal last week.
For me the jury is still out but it doesn't look good....
Wendel was in cahoots with criminals and I have been running them down. As I mentioned before, a good example was his involvement in counterfeiting and by a stroke of luck when his partner in that criminal escapade was arrested he didn't rat him out - so he took the fall solo. Kind of like what Hauptmann did.
To say that Jones, Bleefeld, and Green were on the fringes of the Lindbergh case would be to exaggerate the degree of their involvement (Fisher TGOH p95)
I have never understood the point Fisher was trying to make when he wrote this in his book. Saying Bleefeld was on the fringe of the case is no exaggeration, and to insinuate this as if to say he wouldn't be 'in the know' concerning the Wendel/Fisch connection is itself an exaggeration.
Arthur Jones of course had no involvement other then to have been in the right place at the right time. Still he was there and had the opportunity to hear what he would later claim to have (or something similar).
Green was by no means on the fringe - he much was closer then that. Everything the Governor had he would have had access to. So what Fisher says here, by including Harry Green, is a very ignorant statement made by someone who simply hasn't done enough research.
What's even worse is that he writes this book to bash people for doing exactly what he himself does. Take his theory concerning Hauptmann being the Lone-Wolf. His only "evidence" concerning the footprints at Hopewell is, once again, a lack of thorough research and Alan Hynd's article in the True Detective Mysteries Magazine.
Are you kidding me? I think I will be freeing up a considerable block of time in the near future by getting rid of some nonsense that has been going on in my life recently consuming huge quantities of it. What I plan on doing with it is (of course) is research. I will try to step by step plot out what I've read then indicate what I found out in relationship to this very serious question. In the meantime I look forward to any other comments anyone has about it as well.....
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2007 5:44:14 GMT -5
Going all the way back to the Grand Jury testimony I found something interesting in Bleefeld's testimony: He further told me that this Henry Uhlig was the Henry Uhlig that was very intimate with Isidore Fisch and Bruno Hauptmann and that this man Uhlig had made a trip to Germany with Isidore Fisch, Fisch having paid for both their passage out of the ransom money and that Henry Uhlig knew when Fisch died in Germany that Fisch had left a package with Bruno Hauptmann and that on Henry Uhlig's return to this country, to the United States, he tried to obtain this package from Hauptmann without success. Mr. Parker, Sr. further added that if he could talk to this Henry Uhlig some where, he would solve the case. (Grand Jury - Kings County - May 5, 1936 -People vs. Murray Bleefeld, et. al. ) Ok. So knowing what Bleefeld tells Scaduto I suppose we can put 2 + 2 together here. The problem comes from the fact he just doesn't say it and why he wouldn't then instead of some 40 years later to Scaduto? I'll keep looking.....
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 11, 2007 10:15:04 GMT -5
Michael--you raise three important issues: (Murray Taylor aka Murray Bleefeld, 552 Acadamy Street, NYC):
1. Bleefeld's testimony and credibility? I am pretty certain that Andrew Dutch in Hysteria in 1975 [pp. 38, 83, 157, 166-168, 176 or 189] also credits Bleefeld with the connection between Fisch and Wendel in a previous case of narcotics or smuggling in Trenton? At one time, long ago, someone tried to check the trial records in Trenton to find the link? I forget who that was or what they found?
2. I have always found it difficult to imagine how Henry Uhlig could come to the USA with Fisch, hang around with him, room with him etc etc and yet plead so dumb about Fisch's many illegal activities? BRH said when he first met Fisch he was with a tall, Scandinavian man on Hunter island--but apparently this is not Uhlig? Wouldn't Uhlig know whether or not Steinweg was correct that Fisch paid for both passages to Germany with Gold Certs? So how did Uhlig avoid testimony for the defense of BRH? They sure nabbed Gerta Henkel as a testimony to Fisch and BRHs meeting?
3. and.....
Absolutely! BRH only needs be connected to a single individual eg Isador Fisch...who would be perfectly positioned to be connected to others like Condon and Violet Sharpe thru the Temple of Divine Power and Paul E. Wendel by another route? We are still auditioning for the Master-Mind.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 11, 2007 12:17:47 GMT -5
That's very problematic. For one you have Hauptmann in an essentially subservient role to Fisch. Do you honestly think that's plausible? Hauptmann is a key figure no matter how you view the crime, so would he be taking orders from Fisch? Hauptmann gave up Fisch, so why didn't he go all the way and give him the credit you think he's due? Then you still have a big dead end with Fisch. How does this guy get connected with a "mastermind" through a bunch of flakes at a temple? I would love to hear a detailed step by step outline of how all of this could have occurred. It just gets too messy and involves too many people who are not "masterminds". These people would leave a trail a mile wide. Even if the cops weren't looking, they would stumble across this trail and at least some of all of the people needed for all of this to work would give it up. The biggest problem with a "mastermind" behind the LKC besides the fact that the evidence doesn't really support it, is that such a figure would require an infrastructure and extensive planning. That carries a commensurate penalty along with it and it's the reason that organized crime can be detected. On the other hand limited planning and a singular or small amount of players with limited knowledge and the ability to adapt quickly as circumstances dictate, can be almost undetectable. Let me ask this; if there is a "mastermind" who planned and executed the crime of the century, how did he ( or they) put together the "gang"? How does one go about this without letting any word get out if the "gang" is not in existence prior? Does one shop around? Why ( and how) did Hauptmann come to be chosen? Did he have prior experience? Did he advertise? Maybe I am missing something with all of the grand theories, but I really don't here much when it comes to the very real little details that can not be ignored.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 11, 2007 16:53:24 GMT -5
Good point Kevin--and it did get out:
Thomas F. Rice wrote an affidavit and a letter to CAL stating that he heard about the kidnapping on Feb 25 1932 in the Imperial Hotel in NYC. He further stated that he was accompainied there by his Prohibition Supervisor Palmer Canfield and a Mr. Gaston B. Means. He told James Roosevelt, the Governor's son, to contact either FDR or Lindbergh himself and inform him of the plot.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 12, 2007 5:53:07 GMT -5
Obviously a good point. It's not just what but when. We don't know what's actually true and what isn't. We do know that offers of immunity were offered "under the table" even though waivers of such were offered into evidence before the Court testimony. So dirty tricks by Prosecutors weren't only restricted to Flemington, NJ. As the years went by attempts were made by the Defense to find Bleefeld, Weiss, and Schlossman Lawyers.
I do not have the Dutch book so could you tell me what his source for this is? It could actually be himself so its important to know.
Uhlig did testify for the Defense but Reilly pissed him off which ultimately had the Court declare him a hostle witness. Bottom line is that he wasn't handled properly.
Rab once suggested that Fisch was simply de-frauding Hauptmann. He was a Master Con-Artist and Crook. The temple could be a nexus for certain parties to have become familiar with one another (or at least be known). We have one example of an innocent party being employed to do the Kidnapper's dirty work - Perrone. Perhaps others were employed in a similar fashion knowing what they were doing was illegal.
The J.J. Faulkner slip is a big problem for me however, because if this person was innocent they could have cracked the case wide open by coming forward. They also stood to gain a sizable chunk of the reward.
Fear of being clipped?
Perhaps, but after the trial was over I am quite sure they noticed no Prosecution Witnesses were being plugged so they could have safely come forward then proved it was their handwriting. And again the footprint evidence which proves a person other then Hauptmann was on scene at both Highfields and St. Raymond's. I am suspicious of the St. Raymond's because of Condon... I know he was there again before the Cops so he may have had something to do with this print in order to give creditability to his bogus story.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 12, 2007 6:52:43 GMT -5
I doubt Fisch would get away with conning Hauptmann for very long. Anyway I don't think that is the issue, the question is how do you make this large criminal enterprise fly given the parameters of these characters ? I mean on an interpersonal scale and in detail. I offered an idea on what occurred in this case based on the evidence available and the historical study of kidnapping. As I expected it was challenged ( as it should be ) on the basis of specific details and actions which I had proposed. Yet every time I hear the conspiracy angle discussed I never see any reasonable attempt to describe just how this would work in the real everyday sense. Is this not a double standard? Sorry but meeting at a Temple is not going to cut it. How do you propose the recruitment of this gang for this particular crime went down? Can you imagine the bargaining that would ensue? OK, maybe there were other comps, as you suggested, still a guy like Hauptmann and Fisch sure aren't working for loyalty. Where's the beef here? Seems to me that these theories are more entertainment than substance if they fail to include the nitty gritty details of their operations ( of course I don't expect anyone to actually know this, just a possible explanation will do). You know until I can see something with some real meat on it I will still maintain that this crime is far simpler than many think and that improvisation is being mistaken for complex planning and action.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 12, 2007 9:43:19 GMT -5
Michael--I hear you. Pretty soon no one will have the Dutch book because the price has risen to over $150 bucks. It should be put on DVD by Ronelle?
I was wrong about the reference--it turns out to be in Theone Wrights The Search for the Lindbergh Baby in 1981 and he quotes Scaduto on pp.290-291.
We should take note of the last chapter (25) of Wrights book where he outlines his "two gang theory". It matches pretty nicely with Ellis Parker. In his eyes, the "extortion in the Bronx" is separate from the kidnap and they never have Charlie Jr. {All they have is the sleeping suite, the safety pins and the symbol] Thus, Fisch, Violet, BRH, Hauptmann, Mary Cerrita merely take advantage of CAL to the tune of $50,000. The second gang, possible under the control of Al Capone and his "get out of jail free card" are the actual kidnappers or possibly hijack Charlie jr from others? Dutch also mentions a "three gang theory"--Condons gang in the Bronx, Curtis' gang in Norfolk AND Means gang scamming Evalyn Walsh McClean. Later Means says all 3 gangs are one and the same.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 12, 2007 19:53:13 GMT -5
What's the difficulty here? Maybe I don't understand the point.
If several people connected to this case were all there then its hard to dismiss. The problem is proving this. I don't feel its been done.
For money.
Wright was wrong. Those involved in the extortion were involved in crime too. The corpse was Charles Jr. Same Gang however it may have been smaller after some left the scene.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 12, 2007 20:33:35 GMT -5
It's all in the details.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 13, 2007 5:47:51 GMT -5
I think its one's approach to how they research the case which can reveal certain things or not. A conspiracy, in my opinion, had to exist because I see solid evidence which supports more then one person being involved. To suggest, for example, because I don't know who the "other" people are means I cannot prove a conspiracy doesn't make sense to me.
Now I completely agree with Kevin that as conspiracies grow larger and larger then the degree of success diminishes. The more people - the more opportunity for someone to say the wrong thing to the wrong person.
Again, whoever chose Hauptmann (if he's not the one doing the choosing) picked the right guy as far as that's concerned. He went to the chair with a ton of information - that much we can all agree on I am sure.
I do think a factor is exactly how powerful the person in charge of such a conspiracy may be. The CIA is a good example obviously because its their job to keep what they do a secret.
For me, we must rule out each theory by eliminating key points of contention which must exist if the theory is to survive and/or enjoy possibility. If one believe Dwight Morrow Jr. was involved, then I wouldn't dismiss their theory simply because I thought Hauptmann was.
On the other hand, I will dismiss a theory such as Bob Aldinger's, that he is the Lindbergh child when its been proven to me the corpse discovered by Allen was the child in question.
Going back to this for a minute..... This does sound like something Parker had said in the past. So it could be that Bleefeld heard this somewhere else and/or he's adding a little spin. Bleefeld's assertions changed over time and this is due to the influence of the Prosecution in Kings County. Unfortunately, just like everything else, we must line up all the things he said then cross reference them all the while seeing what other factors may have been influencing him. His Grand Jury testimony however refutes the idea Wendel was "tortured."
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 13, 2007 6:31:44 GMT -5
One model we can use to examine all the facts: Who is Kayser Soze? The Usual Suspects (1995)The Usual Suspects on IMDb: Movies, TV, Celebs, and more... www.imdb.com/title/tt0114814/ - 47k - Cached - Similar pages Basically, Kevin Spacey was able to fool the cops, the crooks and the audience. At no time did he assemble all the conspirators and explain everyones individual role. Each person was hired purely on a "need to know" basis which is common in shadow governments, business, and the Mafia. Never let the right hand know what the left is doing. It might be BRH, Fisch, Wendel, Means, Nosovitsky or..............pick your own Mastermind.;>)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 13, 2007 7:12:34 GMT -5
That's a good example Rick, so is The Thomas Crown Affair. Problem is these are fictional events. In the real world things don't happen according to a script. That's why I say everything is in the details. Details are everywhere in our daily existence and any human event that one can think of. I say that all of the naming of suspects and coincidences are interesting and if one is writing a fictional account of the crime they can be woven into a fascinating story. But in the real world it's those troubling details which can not be ignored, if you are seeking the truth of what occurred. How, for example, was the relative compensation determined? Wouldn't this entail negotiation and counteroffers? What happens if someone is offered a role and backs out ? What do all of these members do when the ante is raised due to the child's death? Who is making these determinations? Sounds to me like your gang needs an accountant as well as a mastermind. What about the loss of the 20k held back by Condon, was this a individual decision ? Bottom line, real historical events always leave traces behind because like all events they are rich in detail. Any claims of a large gang or conspiracy in the LKC must take that fact into account. Otherwise send it to Hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 15, 2007 10:12:47 GMT -5
That's the problem with using fictitious accounts in the first place. But as someone once said, in essence, truth can be stranger then fiction. There are examples of things that happened which would seem impossible but did - require a multitude of people - require preparation - and secrecy.
Watergate comes to mind and of course 9/11...Eventually we would learn about these events but does that mean there are those that unfolded, every time, that we all know (everything) about? Pick your own examples through whatever historical reference you'd like to make because they are there to be found.
This is a great point. The problem here is that we don't know all the answers and cannot know them in a black or white fashion. We must search through the investigations, statements, memos, letters, and reports in order to piece together a logical conclusion.
Its why this message board is so important because no 2 people here see things exactly the same way. Therefore, we are collectively the "control" to any theory that surfaces with sound criticism based upon what I hope is our best efforts at neutrality.
I don't know exactly how one would know this. My personal opinion is that it was more of a symbolic amount. And again, I am not sure it was ever meant to be collected.
Wouldn't this answer depend on whether or not you believe Condon? Or whether you believe "John" even if you do believe Condon? "John" was supposedly killed, if so, what happened to his share? What if a Member of this gang "buys" the ransom for 50 cents on the dollar from the rest of his people because he believes he could successfully launder it?
A lot of "what ifs" but the bottom line is that even knowing and believing Hauptmann is involved certain questions cannot be answered. They are assumed without any proof simply because he was the one who got caught.
Assuming the death was accidental after its abduction. What if he died before? What if it was a planned death?
Inspector Walsh insinuated the $20,000 was raised and meant for Condon because his involvement came immediately thereafter. Additionally, it was Condon who knew the extra $20,000 was in the larger bills which the Treasury Agents were counting on to quickly identify the Spenders. And so conveniently, we have Condon "convincing" Cemetery John that Lindbergh is a poor man - so because of "John's" conscience he agrees to reduce the amount back to exactly $50,000.
Condon then removes the bills he is aware would lead to their arrest, and possibly surrenders his payment as a result.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 24, 2007 17:53:45 GMT -5
[Schlossman]: So we went in, and he started to talk about, well, whether he heard about Crater being knocked off or something like that, and Wendel passed some remark to the effect that everything he ever pulled he never got a dime out of it, even the Lindbergh snatch was just taken right "out of my grasp when I had everything in my hands."
We said, "What do you mean by that?"
He said, "Just as I was walking out with the baby a man stuck a gun in my ribs and took the baby away from me."
(TT page 399, NY vs. Schlossman and Weiss, March 9, 1937)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 25, 2007 17:59:21 GMT -5
Just a little update concerning my search for an additional source for the Wendel/Fisch connection.....
During the various trials I am finding that when someone is asked specifically what the Parkers believed connected Wendel up to the kidnapping an objection is made which is sustained by the presiding Judge. The Judges all seemed to be trying their best not to"retry" the Lindbergh Case during these trials and didn't want these questions to influence the Jury.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 26, 2007 5:42:06 GMT -5
Here's an interesting internal Memo. Note the confidential remark:
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 26, 2007 10:19:57 GMT -5
Hi Michael--serendipity is a scary phenom--like voodoo/hoodoo? Up until only yesterday I had never heard of Spitz and Finnigan--I was searching for Wendel / Schossman and found them? (thanks to you)
Headline: Chicagoan Claims to Have Found Cache of $5000 in "Ransom Money" says Hauptmann was Innocent [ Syracuse Herald 4-20-1936]
Chicago--arrest of the persons he termed the "real kidnappers" of the Lindbergh baby "within several weeks at the most" was predicted today by Bernard J. Finnigan, young Chicago lawyer, who said he was taking part in Gov. Hoffman's investigation of the case.
After flying home from the East Coast Sunday with a claim of discovery of $5000 of the kidnap ransom money Finnigan declared a solution to the case is only hours away?
"Any one of several expected breaks may precipitate the case at any moment" says Finnigan.
Finnigan says Gov. Hoffman of NJ now has evidence showing that BRH, executed for the child's death, was a "positively innocent man".
"A number of other people were the kidnap plotters, the lawyer added. explaining "he couldn't say why" he thought so "without saying too much"?
"Someone will issue warrants against these people after Gov. Hoffman weaves the tangled threads of the case together into a closely knit whole, Finigann said.
Finnigan said he could not say at this time "whether the kidnappers were underworld figures, or what their motive was"?
He insisted, however that the "ransom money" he said was uncovered in NYC with the aid of Stephan Spitz, would unquestionably result to a clean-up of the LKC.
Spitz, a convicted forger who Left jail here to seek the money said he had "bought" the money in Trenton, NJ for 40 cents on the dollar. "end quotes
So who then is Crater? or Carter? Why did the Stephen Spitz, Fred Menk, Adolph Blaustein story end so abruptly?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 26, 2007 17:39:08 GMT -5
Spitz and Finnegan are another interesting "side note" to the case. I have an entire file on this so let me know if you want me to post anything on it....
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 27, 2007 11:07:40 GMT -5
Hi Michael....well it appears that the best connections between Fisch>>>BRH and Fisch>>>Wendel will be thru the ransom money? That may be the best we can get? Apparently Schwartzkopf and Hoover were aware of this as well because they made many weird pronouncements like: "Not a dollar of ransom money has been reported since Hauptmann's execution" said Hoover? "Not a single bill turned up outside of NYCity which tends to confirm the belief that BRH was operating alone"? (Hoover) "The remaining money slipped thru the banks and got back to the US treasury without being detected"? It is also known that Schwartzkopf ordered the burning of any ransom money found after the Trial so that it could nor and would not be recorded. For this reason, Steinweg had trouble proving that Fisch had paid for the steamship tickets with Lindbergh Gold Certs? Even though his buddy got arrested? Some questions you might be able to answer: - Was any ransom money found overseas?
- Julia Grayson mentioned some Gold Certs in Kobe, Japan?
- How much ransom money was found scattered around the USA?
- How much is still missing?
- Did Spitz, Blaustein, Menk or Frank Lan-Yonne Davis really have any Lindbergh ransom money?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 27, 2007 16:47:17 GMT -5
This thread has gone all over the place.....
In order to qualify these statements attributed to Hoover could you give me the source(s)?
I personally don't believe the money slipped through the Treasury because there were people there who's only job was to check for ransom. Now when it was said no one cared then possibly money got through or after Hoffman went out or even before then because there was probably much less an effort being made.
Money was discovered after Hauptmann's arrest and continued to be even though efforts weren't anywhere near where they had been. (Check the Archives under some of Rab's research for more on this......)
Parker believed ransom money turned up in Europe.
The Kobe Japan was the believed origin of a note found in a bank. It's what the NJSP/NYPD believed anyway.
Frank Lan-Yonne Davis was a graphologist as I remember. What is the source for your belief someone claimed he had any? I have a file on him AND there's some stuff on him in other files of mine.
I also have something on Menk...that is if its the same guy to who you refer.
Spitz never panned out. There were some who believed he was hoaxing everyone and others who believed he was telling the truth but used this to his advantage.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 28, 2007 10:09:30 GMT -5
hi Michael...essentially my references are newspapers: The Sheboygan Press Thursday January 16, 1936 (Lan-Yonne Davis) Winnepeg Free Press Friday January 17, 1936 (Jimmy Faulkner) The Ada Evening News (Okahoma) Monday May 4 1936 (Hoover) - More specifically Parker reported ransom money turned up in Fisch's hometown Leipsig or nearbye in Germany
- Other's reported that some ransom money followed Edna Sharpe to London?
- Fred Menk and Adolph Blaustein were Stephen Spitz's contacts at the Newark Mount Treest (or Robert Treat?) Hotel for the $5000 in ransom money? [Is Adolph Blaustein the same as Ignace Blaustein who said he drove the getaway car to Newark Nj? ]
- According to FL-Y Davis, he was in contact with Isadore Fisch in Chicago shortly after the kindaping and long before Fisch's name was brought into the case by BRH. According to his affidavit, Davis stated that Fisch was trying to get rid of $30,000 of hot money in Chicago?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 29, 2007 14:40:08 GMT -5
This was Davis's position. He was in contact with authorities in '32 but I can't say with any degree of certainty it was Fisch he was talking about - then.
Finnegan was a Lawyer who really had his heart in the right place. Like so many others during this time, he was using his own personal funds to assist Governor Hoffman with several leads originating in the Chicago area. However, unlike others, he never once (that I could find) asked Hoffman for funds. Hoffman had him look up several address found in Fisch's property there and discovered those at the addresses expressed knowledge of Fisch.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 30, 2007 11:36:58 GMT -5
Hi Michael--two small yet related questions: - During the weeks or so that the Gang of 5 in NYC was having Wendel write his confession in captivity (over and over with corrections) didn't it occur to anyone (especially Parker) to have Wendel include Fisch in his imaginary story? Did Wendel own up to collecting the ransom in Woodlawn too? And then what did he do with the money? Was Fisch and the ransom just swept under the carpet? Why wouldnt Wendel implicate Fisch?
- Do we know the identity of the bank teller that received the JJ Faulkner slip and the $2900 bucks? He claimed that the man who gave him this money was "small and sallow faced" and that he would surely recognize him again if he saw him (Leon Turrou). So was this mysterious teller shown Bruno's, Fish's, Baker's, Novosivitski's photos? Apparently, he did not recognize BRH?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 30, 2007 12:52:15 GMT -5
He wrote these confessions willingly. What was in them was coming from Wendel not Bleefeld.
I was just reading his very first statement to Wilentz today searching for this elusive piece of information. Sometimes when you read so much you miss a lot because of it. However, having said this, I can't find anything in the various confessions mentioning this. I don't expect Wendel would bring this up so my focus has been on Parker and Bleefeld. I am most surprised not seeing reference to it in Hoffman's paperwork. It's my experience that he would have pursued it.....
The bank teller's name was James Estey. Before Dr. Gardner's book came out just about all sources relied upon the NJSP's investigations where they all said Estey couldn't remember anything because he was so busy. However, Dr. Gardner uncovered an FBI report penned out by Sisk which revealed a new tid-bit of information which is interesting (see The Case That Never Dies page 120).
And of course, Lloyd being the generous man that he is, he gave this report to me and proves once again that so many reported facts just might not be facts at all. So when a person claiming to know this case maligns this book please be sure to ask where they've done their research. If the answer is in their Brooklyn kitchen then please call them out on this to prevent further buffoonery.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 1, 2007 8:52:41 GMT -5
Hello Michael--thank you for the additional info. As it stands now, both incidents leave more questions than answers: - Why would Wendell be permitted to claim "lone wolfe" status without then heading out to the Bronx (where his sister lived) and negotiating for the ransom? After all, he is a dead ringer for John Gorch in Boston who got lots of attention from Condon. Maybe Parker was just following thru on his assertion that the kidnap and extortion were "two separate crimes"? Self-fullfilling prophecy?
- As regards James Estey, I wonder why Leon Turrou thought he gave a partial description--male, small and sallow faced? (Having a yellowish color; of a pale, sickly color, tinged with yellow;)Nevertheless, Estey becomes only the third person (not blind as a bat) to see CJ or his accomplice. Pretty important stuff.[Condon is #1 and Ben Lupica is #2] It is not believable that even if Estey did not remember outright which customer dropped off the ransom money that he would not be shown a rogues gallery & taken to see BRH in a lineup to see if it would jar his memory just like Jafsie ?? Doesnt add up? Reilly should have called him as a defense witness?
- "The teller who received the gold certs said that he noticed the MAN holding back outside the window until a large crowd had gathered. When the line was three abreast, HE joined it and turned in his money for exchange. HE had failed to fill in the required deposit slip with his name and address and was told by the teller to do so. Leaving the window the MAN walked to a shelf and filled in a slip, which HE then turned in with the money. HE received his silver certificates in return and walked out. NY Times September 23 1934.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Oct 2, 2007 6:19:08 GMT -5
I don't hear the other shoe dropping here, Michael. To say that Wendel wrote his "confession" willingly is a little like saying that someone who has their hands bound with rope willingly chafes and burns their wrists while trying to free themselves from a burning room. Wendel was kidnapped, held against his will and forced to write a confession, plain and simple. He did what anyone in that position with the determination to survive would have done to escape the clutches of a man whose calculating mind had deteriorated while his already large ego steadily took centre stage. I don't believe there's any question Parker was a brilliant detective in his day, but Wendel's scamming and stringing him along on the LKC for three and a half years and Parker's jubilation at seeing Wendel's ridiculously-flawed explanation clearly indicates his abilities were declining rapidly. He is a tragic figure who rightfully deserves credit for truly having his heart in the right places most of the time, in spite of his indiscretions. There's just no need to sugar coat his criminal actions.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Oct 2, 2007 6:25:13 GMT -5
Rick, that seems like an awful lot of detail for Estey to have noticed and begs the question, "If the man's actions were that suspicious why wouldn't Estey have quarantined the money while he got out of his list of Lindbergh ransom bills or called for security?" And Estey also thought a woman might have been the depositor? I think there was a lot of journalistic license at work on this story and "JJ Faulkner" simply slipped through the cracks on this one.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 2, 2007 7:03:41 GMT -5
Joe--I dont know about the accuracy of Esteys first recollections, but it is more likely that the skeleton found on Mt. Rose is a female rather than JJ Faulkner**? Even if Esteys free memory was faulty or embellished to get attention, it begs the question of whether or not he saw the photos of all the players after BRH was arrested. Apparently, our top 3 witnesses failed to identify BRH: Condon, Lupica and Estey? ergo the need for Hochmuth and Whitehead? **see Bob Mills post reply #14: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1139010719&page=1#1139226015
|
|